WASHINGTON - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said Friday he has documentary evidence that the United States plans to invade his country. Chavez, interviewed on ABC's "Nightline," said the plan is called "Balboa" and involves aircraft carriers and planes. A transcript of the interview was made available by "Nightline." He said U.S. soldiers recently went to Curacao, an island off Venezuela's northwest coast. He described as a "lie" the official U.S. explanation that they visited Curacao for rest and recreation.

Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, the US Ambassador to Iraq, made the off the record prediction that the US will go into Syria to combat insurgents that have been using the country as a staging ground for terrorist activity in Iraq.

Ambassador Khalilzads comments were made at businessman Teddy Forstmann's annual off the record gathering in Aspen, Colorado this weekend.

My guess is a CIA-assisted coup in Caracas, followed by the usurpers calling in "friendly forces" who just happen to be nearby, to secure the oil, seize the airfields and the few radio stations not already run by the opposition. I'd better buy a new Mac before my boycott of US goods kicks in. Pity, I was hoping to be able to wait until Rev B of the Intel Macs....

My guess is a CIA-assisted coup in Caracas, followed by the usurpers calling in "friendly forces" who just happen to be nearby, to secure the oil, seize the airfields and the few radio stations not already run by the opposition. I'd better buy a new Mac before my boycott of US goods kicks in. Pity, I was hoping to be able to wait until Rev B of the Intel Macs....

I'd predict Syria. And the element of surprise isn't America's forte. I mean, it's not like we had the element of suprise going into Iraq. It was months of "OK, here we come..." Syria ""makes sense" strategically and it's sort of part and parcel of Iraq politically. Still, I don't think that in the immediate future we have the money or troops to do the job, even in Syria, unless Bush actually asks Americans to sacrifice anything, which he's not likely to do. At least for this year Syria shouldn't worry.

As for Venezuela, a coup sounds like the US plan. Way too big to invade and the US is relatively loath to invade American countries, prefering to control them in other ways.

I'd predict Syria. And the element of surprise isn't America's forte. I mean, it's not like we had the element of suprise going into Iraq. It was months of "OK, here we come..." Syria ""makes sense" strategically and it's sort of part and parcel of Iraq politically. Still, I don't think that in the immediate future we have the money or troops to do the job, even in Syria, unless Bush actually asks Americans to sacrifice anything, which he's not likely to do. At least for this year Syria shouldn't worry.

As for Venezuela, a coup sounds like the US plan. Way too big to invade and the US is relatively loath to invade American countries, prefering to control them in other ways.

Click to expand...

My "element of surprise" comment was definitely tongue-n-cheek, even though I often refer to Miami as a country. Operation Balboa is nothing new link though Chavez alluded to it this week. The "White Players" in the war games, Colombia, are assumed to remain "neutral" in such a scenario, which is another highly unlikelihood.

I would think Syria would be a good guess, but that may be prior to, during or after all Sheol breaks loose. When the Shiite hits the fanatic, Sunni or later someone's going to need a Baath in the whole region.

i doubt we could take on another war, bush might try syria and say its not a new war its spreading the war in iraq out. He may try venezuela and say its a threat to the USA. If he trys venezuale he might pull out of iraq( to get the troops there to fight in venezuale) but he would say we are leaving iraq becuz they have a goverment and when it falls he would blame it on the people of iraq not the USA. Thats Mr. bush for you!

Iran. They have been mounting a case against Iran for quite some time now.

Click to expand...

The US would get its butt kicked if it tried to invade Iran (in terms of acceptable casualties and US economic strength). Iran has a functioning military that could provide more legitimate resistance than Iraq did either time around. And then subduing that many more people with our thinly stretched military in _another_ country bordering Pakistan (and its 150 million people) would be impossible for the US military without putting the US on a true war economy. No way no how, and that's exactly why Iran can and is pursuing nuclear weapons now while the US can't do a damnedthing about it.

The US would get its butt kicked if it tried to invade Iran (in terms of acceptable casualties and US economic strength). Iran has a functioning military that could provide more legitimate resistance than Iraq did either time around. And then subduing that many more people with our thinly stretched military in _another_ country bordering Pakistan (and its 150 million people) would be impossible for the US military without putting the US on a true war economy. No way no how, and that's exactly why Iran can and is pursuing nuclear weapons now while the US can't do a damnedthing about it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't put it past them. The President is trying to get legislation passed that will allow him to pre-emptively use nuclear weapons against possible acts of terrorism. They should have known that Iraq was not going to work either.

The US would get its butt kicked if it tried to invade Iran (in terms of acceptable casualties and US economic strength). Iran has a functioning military that could provide more legitimate resistance than Iraq did either time around. And then subduing that many more people with our thinly stretched military in _another_ country bordering Pakistan (and its 150 million people) would be impossible for the US military without putting the US on a true war economy. No way no how, and that's exactly why Iran can and is pursuing nuclear weapons now while the US can't do a damnedthing about it.

Click to expand...

Depends on if you mean a full fledged invasion by "who's next." A strike against Iranian facilities alleged to be involved in nuclear weapons production is highly likely, by the US or Israel, in the near future. That doesn't mean US troops in Teheran, which I agree would be suicidal, even for Bush's neoconservative planners blinded by their rose colored vision of the world.

I doubt we're going to be waging war on anybody anytime soon. Maybe if the conservatives win again in 2006, but I don't see that happening either. Anyone who supports another war is going to lose their next election unless it was really neccessary. Like if Bin Laden attacked us again.

The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.

The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.

Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (pdf)

At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would "respond with overwhelming force" to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said "all options" would be available to the president.

The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.

Titled "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.

A "summary of changes" included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document "revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations."

The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using "or intending to use WMD" against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.

yes, but i believe bush already has that power. if i'm reading it right, the pentagon plan is designed to grant lower-level commanders (lower-level than the commander in chief, that is) the power to nuke.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.